"Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI. Conclusions: [circumcision] is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population."

Background: Lack of male circumcision has been found to be a risk factor for HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in several studies performed in developing countries. However, the few studies conducted in developed nations have yielded inconsistent results. Policy regarding circumcision of male infants as a prevention measure against HIV/STI remains a controversial topic. This study describes the prevalence of circumcision and its association with HIV and STI in a U. S. military population.

Methods: This is a case-control study of male HIV infected U. S. military personnel (n= 232) recruited from 7 military medical centers and male U. S. Navy controls (n=516) from a general aircraft carrier population. Cases and controls completed similar self-administered HIV behavioral risk surveys. Case circumcision status was abstracted from medical charts while control status was reported on the survey. Cases and controls were frequency matched on age. Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI.

Results: The proportion of circumcised men did not significantly differ between cases (84.9%) and controls (81.8%). Prevalence of circumcision among men born in the U. S. was higher (85.0%) than those born elsewhere (58.1%). After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users, 5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+ partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high for men who were single or divorced/separated.

Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population.

Foreskin doesn't put you at risk! Buttsex puts you at risk! This seems to even further recommend against circumcision in light of the study finding that intact men are less likely to engage in anal penetration than their circumcised counterparts.

Gary

10/31/2011 09:25:50 am

PLease can someone with power get hold of me. i have invented a device that can keep an uncircumcised guys foreskin back. this lets u experiance what its like to be cut.

Michael

1/11/2012 10:44:32 pm

Careful, your ignorance is showing. Does your device also deaden the thousands of fine-touch nerve endings in the foreskin ridges? How about reducing the sensitivity of the glans to simulate the extra layers of calcified dead skin cells? Everyone knows sex feels better without a condom, and you're essentially promoting the opposite conclusion.

Mary Lanser

11/6/2011 08:45:19 am

well, duh. If this so called connection between circumcision and HIV/STD's has been proven to be non existent in the U.S. military.... why would the U.S. be any different. You would think that the CDC would be smart enough to admit, this is more comparable, instead of comparing the U.S. to Africa! What is their agenda?????

Romario also warned that infrastructure projects needed for the tournament, including airports and urban transport, were behind schedule.

Mike

1/11/2012 04:59:01 pm

Unfortunately, they do not say what other benefits circumcision "may" have. A prophylactic against masturbation? A cash cow for people who have taken an oath to "do no harm"? A means of repressing male sexuality?

A source of neonatal foreskin tissue with which to do biomedical research? They are "scalping" little baby boys so they can sell the little "scalp" for a bounty. Maybe they should give away a free stuffed "bile bear" with every circumcision?

Thanks. in here Sri Lanka only muslims are circumcised but UN and their henchmen who sell foreskins for harvesting fibroblast constantly brainwash our people to get circumcised. this is an utter BS. I recently talked with a Filipino nurse who said me it reduces the urine tract infection and STI I was gonna ask her vagina is more prone to urine tract infection yet they never saw the vagina. but I didn't because I know no matter how much I say Filipinos don't listen to me. in every year in march during the summer vacation they make a massive circumcision ceremony for mutilating little boys in front of girls and women. this is really disgusting and humilating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T79p2guESZA
I am sure feminists will whine if it's reversed.

In the fight against AIDS, keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men. Note this quote:

"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
http://dontgetstuck.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/

The reason the foreskin provides protection is because it contains Langerin which is a barrier to HIV-infected Langerhan's cells thus making the foreskin the body's front line of defense against disease and infections such as HIV! De Witte wrote: "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."
Reference:
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. (March 2007). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine 13
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17334373